Reply To: Proliferation?

[MARK LOFTS]

Dear Pluto,

Welcome Back!

Yes, I am having a further read of books on galactic structure – and feel I should retract part of the last posting for a partial alteration.

The question is that of a possible change from elliptical to spiral galaxies. I now realize that is not impossible for ellipticals to ‘change’ into spirals if these ellipticals somehow become involved in larger plasma vortex which breaks up the elliptical galaxy or group of ellipticals – with the addition of further hydrogen plasma. If hydrogen plasma in large vortices was swirling around and breaking up an elliptical galaxy it could lead to the formation of large type 2 stars which would then convert to type 1 stars and seed the next generation of the ‘former elliptical’ population. However the important fuel for this process is the plasma itself since an elliptical galaxy in existence for a very long time e.g. 30,000,000,000 years i.e. about twice what is allowed for the Big Bang, would be using up its hydrogen by then so would need a further boost to its fuel sources, hydrogen-to-carbon/oxygen/calcium/iron conversion probably not being extensive enough in the last type 2 generation in the ellipticals to effect any change in the galaxy. That is, by itself, an old elliptical would just convert into pure He!

You see that I assign an active role to the plasma – the plasma coming in from outside the galaxy rather than being some mysterious internal product. Nor do I invoke the spontaneous ‘Popping into existence’ (i.e. Karl Popper theory-like) of hydrogen atoms that was first proposed by Fred Hoyle. This means that the total mass of the elliptical galaxy on its breakup will increase because of the addition of the plasma (comprising primarily a hydrogen plasma), the result being the generation of a spiral galaxy with old type 2 relic stars in small galaxies around it – I suppose, but I cannot show you an astronomical demonstration of such a conversion.

What I am really trying to get to you consider is not so much the conversion-breakup of an elliptical to a spiral – which must be very unusual – but the source of the plasma in the first place. This latter is the basic problem of Lerner’s plasma cosmological model. An attempt at a solution for this was actually undertaken by Alfven, who, though unsuccessful, mentions an early and progressive cosmological conception updated in Sweden in the late 19th/early 20th century – until it was suppressed by the Einstein fraternity. I refer to the Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology – it avoids Olbers’ Paradox!

The website you give in your posting is highly relevant here. When I looked at it it seemed unfamiliar at first but that was only the terminology. What the writer of the “Time Acceleration Hypothesis” really intends to say is that there is no Big Bang in the sense of an ‘Expanding Universe’ but rather it is the obverse of the Big Bang position. That is, the universe is finite and static is size – as Einstein wished to believe – but in order to harmonize with the features interpreted as proving the Big Bang, one claims instead that all the objects in the universe are shrinking – galaxies, stars, planets, people and atoms are all shriking in size. According to this theory, we are not aware of our shrinking relative to space itself so we mistakenly infer that space is expanding!

Conversely I consider we must reject that theory because it too is based on the finite universe principles established by Einstein – i.e. special and general relativity. I realize of course that the Big Bang was already put forward by that classic Gothic horror writer Edgar Allan Poe, an American as Lerner points out! What is generally not perceived is that Einstein gave such views scientific respectability – so if we don’t achieve focus fusion, there really is gothic horror facing humanity on our planet! I ask you now to consider a non-Einsteinian infinite universe – and again the question as to where the plasma that could break up a ‘tired old He-filled elliptical galaxy’ could come from.

Yours faithfully

Mark